9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 726X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... djudicating Authority/Tribunal while passing the impugned order dated 02.11.2022 in IA 676/2022 in IBA/374/2020 had observed among other things that "taking into consideration" the averments in the application by RP as withdrawal has been approved in the CoC meeting held on 06.06.2022, the Application u/s 12A was allowed. Appellant's Submissions 3. According to the Learned Counsel for the Appellant, the Adjudicating Authority/Tribunal had wrongly allowed the IA/676/2022 in IBA/374/2020 filed by the 1st Respondent, without properly considering the 'legal points and facts' and passed the 'order', in a mechanical manner. 4. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant points out that the 1st Respondent cannot accept any claim without getting it condoned by the Adjudicating Authority/Tribunal, as mandated under Regulation 12 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Debtor) Regulations, 2016. 5. Advancing argument, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that without receipt of any consent viz. Form -FA from the Appellant, who initiated 'CIRP' the 1st Respondent/Interim Resolution Professional should not have passed a 'Resolution' for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in this Order. 5. For the afore noted reasons, this 'Appeal' is allowed and the Order of the Adjudicating Authority in IA No. 693/2020 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh adjudication on merits. All parties shall appear before the 'Adjudicating Authority' on 15/06/2023. No Costs. The Connected Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, are closed.' and comes out with an argument that the 'impugned order', was passed without providing 'any objections of the Appellant' being recorded thereto. 10. According to the Appellant after 50 days of delay from the 'Last date of submission of claims', as per the public announcement M/s. SS Metal Co and M/s. Amsa Agencies & Services had made their claim and the same was admitted by the Resolution Professional and voting rights were revised accordingly, with SS Metal Co. with 84% voting rights and the Appellant and M/s. Amsa Agencies & Services with a voting right of 8% each. 11. It comes to be known that the 1st Respondent had filed an application u/s 19(2) of the Code for non-cooperation of the suspended Board of Directors of the Corporate Debtor because of complete non-cooperation of the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tor and the settlement agreement was placed and in terms of the order dated 16.03.2022, the amount payable to the said Operational Creditor was Rs. 1,86,389/- and the said Operational Creditor admitted that the entire sum of Rs. 1,86,389/- was received by the Applicant in IA(IBC)/676(CHE)/2022. 17. It cannot be forgotten that in the instant case on hand, is confined only to the 'Corporate Debtor' viz. M/s. Prodeb Brewery Technology Belgium Pvt. Ltd., and that apart, the 'Resolution Professional', had explained to the 'Committee' that the claims in respect of 'all other Companies' cannot be entertained. 18. To put it precisely, and succinctly, the 'Resolution' in the third meeting of 'Committee of Creditors' was approved with 92% of votes in its favour and with 8% against it. As a matter of fact, the 1st Respondent in IA 676/2022 in Company Petition No. IBA/374/2020 viz. M/s Mayura's Industrial Services (with 8% of voting share) had not voted in favour of the aforesaid Resolution Plan. In such a situation, the application in IA 676/2022 in Company Petition No. IBA/374/2020 was projected, considering the fact the Resolution for 'withdrawal of the application' was passed with more t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fessional/Applicant by providing all the Books of Accounts till the date of commencement of CIRP, by the Adjudicating Authority viz. 16.03.2022 etc. 24. In so far as the second Respondent / Suspended Director of M/s. Prodeb Brewery Technology Belgium Pvt. Ltd., Chennai, it is pointed out in their 'Reply', to the main instant 'Company Appeal', that in view of the fact the 'Operational Debt' was settled and 'all the Creditors', of the Company, were settled, there will be no purpose served in keeping the Company under 'CIRP'. Further, the 'Appellant', was only 'aggrieved', in respect of the meagre amount of an operational debt amounting to Rs. 1,86,389/-. 25. One cannot remain in oblivion of the fact that the 'mandate of the Code' is for 'Resolution' and 'Revival' of Companies. Furthermore, the Appellant is an affected person, because they want more money than what is owed to them by the 'Corporate Debtor'. 26. According to the second Respondent, the instant Appeal is an 'motivated' and also an 'abuse of process of law'. 27. It must be borne in mind that the jurisdiction of an Adjudicating Authority/Tribunal u/s 12 of the Code is very much limited. In reality, where 'CoC', had app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
